I’ll take these ‘useless organs’ one at a time. Sometimes the
author of the list didn’t use the proper name; when that’s the case,
I’ll use the author’s name for it in quotes, with the proper name in
parentheses.

Human Vomeronasal Organ: The contention that there is no possible
function of the human VNO is unsupported.1

“While virtually all of the larger muscles of the body have obvious (as well
as some not so obvious) mechanical functions, smaller muscles are not necessarily
useless. For example, two of the smallest muscles in the body, the stapedius and
the tensor tympani, serve to dampen the movements of the auditory ossicles and the
tympanic membrane (respectively) preventing loud sounds from overloading these delicate
structures of the middle ear. In general, most small, short muscles of the body
produce fine adjustments in the movement of larger muscles.

“One of the problems with the whole concept of vestigial or functionless muscles
is the well-known fact that unused muscles quickly degenerate. People ranging from
astronauts exposed to a prolonged weightless environment, to those confined to long
bed rest, lose a significant amount of muscle mass in only a few months. In short,
muscle mass is a matter of ‘use it or lose it’. It is unlikely that
any muscle that was virtually unused for the lifetime of an individual (to say nothing
of generations of individuals over millions of years) would remain as healthy muscle
tissue. It seems overwhelmingly likely that any muscle in the body that actually
exists in the present, serves some function.”

It is in principle not possible to prove that an organ is useless, because there
is always the possibility that a use may be discovered in the future.

A CMI biologist suggested that one function of ear muscles could be to help remove
wax from the ears. When a person is chewing, or smiling, etc. the ear muscles move
the ears. This gradually moves the wax outwards, cleaning the ears. But there could
be other functions also.

Wisdom teeth: Wisdom teeth almost exclusively cause problems
in countries where the diet consists of soft foods. Through most of human history,
the average diet consisted of foods which required more work to chew, resulting
in better jaw development with more room for the teeth. See
Are wisdom teeth (third molars) vestiges of human evolution?

“Neck” (or cervical) ribs: I would consider something
that develops in only 1 of 200 people and causes problems when it does to be pathological
and a result of abnormal development. In short, an example of human devolution,
rather than evolution.

“Third eyelid” (plica semilunaris): This is one of
the places where the author of the list shows his/her ignorance. The plica semilunaris
actually has a critical function for the health of the eye. It secretes the sticky
substance that hardens into the crust we sometimes find around our eyes when we
wake up. This substance surrounds any particles that find their way into the eye,
making them less likely to scratch the eye, and making it easier for the tears and
eyelids to remove the particles from the eye. If we didn’t have this organ,
our eyes would be much more prone to painful injuries that would affect our sight,
and also make us more susceptible to related infections.

“‘Darwin’s point’ is a cartilaginous bump on the rim of
the outer ear found in about 10% of humans. This is an autosomally dominant trait
with incomplete penetration, and is ‘thought to be the vestige of a joint
that allowed the top part of the ancestral ear to swivel or flop down over the opening
to the ear.’

“Spinney follows plastic surgeon Anthony Sclafani of the New York Eye and
Ear Infirmary in New York City, arguing that the genetics of the Darwin’s
point condition suggest that it is an evolutionary vestige:

“‘The trait is passed on according to an autosomal dominant pattern,
meaning that a child need only inherit one copy of the gene responsible to have
Darwin’s point. That suggests that at one time it was useful. However, it
also has variable penetration, meaning that you won’t necessarily have the
trait even if you inherit the gene. “The variable penetration reflects the
fact that it is no longer advantageous,” Sclafani says.’

“However, this is merely twisting genetics into an evolutionary tale. Autosomal
dominant traits can arise through mutations and either have no functional importance
(such as the widow’s peak) or are harmful (such as Huntington’s disease),
so it does not have to be functional to have any sort of dominance. Rather, the
combination of autosomal dominance and incomplete penetration suggest that it’s
a mutation, but it does not affect the survival of the organism. And since it is
a dominant trait, it is able to find its way into the population more readily than
a mutation that gives rise to a recessive allele. Therefore, Darwin’s point
merely provides at best an example of natural variation and at worst an example
of genetic degeneration, neither of which is a problem for the biblical worldview.”

Subclavius muscle: The Wikipedia description (at the time of writing)
of the muscles function says that it carries the shoulder downward and forward,
and draws the clavicle inferiorly as well as anteriorly. In addition, in the event
of a fractured clavicle (the clavicle is the most frequently-fractured long bone),
the subclavius muscle protects the brachial plexus and the subclavian muscles.

This hardly seems vestigial to me! The comments on the unlikelihood of the survival
of vestigial muscles above also apply here.

Palmaris (longus) muscle: While this muscle is highly variable,
and its absence (in around 10% of the population—most frequently in Caucasian
people but less frequently in other populations) isn’t associated with a measurable
loss in grip strength, the fact that it isn’t badly atrophied in the people
who possess it indicates that it has some use. (See also
Selfish gene theory, the ENCODE project and vestigial muscles)

Male nipples: The existence of male nipples is attributable to
design economy—both boy and girl babies develop from a common blueprint, with
hormones controlling the development of sex-specific traits. It is unclear whether
male nipples are useless, however. They’re full-sized, equipped with blood
vessels and nerves—in other words, they have everything a functioning organ
has. The most commonly-cited possible purpose for them is sexual stimulation. See
Male nipples prove evolution?

Erector pili: These muscles, found in all mammals, are what causes
someone’s hair to stand up when cold or frightened. The hair can trap more
air when it stands on end, so forms an insulating layer to help to retain heat.
Evolutionists say that humans have so little body hair now that the erector pili
muscles are useless. But muscle contraction in and of itself helps to retain body
heat, and they also have an important role in keeping the skin’s oil glands
unblocked. See
Blind fish, island immigrants and hairy babies.

Body hair: This person’s list acknowledges the eyebrows’
function in keeping sweat out of the eyes (eyelashes are also useful for keeping
debris out of the eyes). In addition, hair on the top of the head is useful for
insulation (a great deal of body heat is lost out of the top of the head) and protection
from sunburn. On other parts of the body, hair may have a sensory function; hair
movement is transferred to sensory nerves within the skin. And as mentioned earlier,
hairs keep the pores in the skin open and healthy, allowing movement of oils onto
the skin from the glands at the base of the hairs.

Plantaris muscle: The plantaris has an unusual number of proprioceptive
receptor end organs, so it probably plays a role in proprioception. And it does
weakly aid in plantarflexion of the ankle joint and flexing of the knee joint. (The plantaris and the question of
vestigial muscles in man)

Thirteenth rib: It is unclear whether this condition is referred
to distinct from the cervical ribs above; apparently this is a different condition
as it is said to affect 8% rather than 5% of the population. But again, this could
be attributed to a developmental anomaly (when people are born with six fingers,
no one claims it is some sort of evolutionary ‘throwback’).

Male uterus/female vas deferens: These, while they make up two
entries on this person’s list, only merit one entry, because their cause is
the same. In the earliest stages of development, a baby develops the beginnings
of both the male and female reproductive systems. Hormones determine which system
develops fully. Rarely, hormones can cause the wrong system to develop partially,
resulting in some level of gender ambiguity. This is not an example of vestigiality;
no evolutionist would argue that humans were at some point androgynous.

Fifth toe: The fifth toe provides width and flexibility to the
foot while walking barefoot. Problems with the fifth toe largely arise from wearing
shoes that fit improperly.

Pyramidalis muscle: Again, see the comments about the unlikelihood
of the survival of truly vestigial muscles. Just because a muscle is minor doesn’t
mean it is useless. This muscle helps to strengthen the rectus sheath.

Coccyx: The underappreciated tailbone actually has a couple important
functions. It is an anchor point for several muscle groups, and removal of the coccyx
can cause difficulty in sitting or standing up, difficulty in giving birth, and
incontinence.

Paranasal sinuses: I have never heard anyone argue that our sinuses
are useless before! Many roles have been suggested for them, including lightening
the weight of the front of the skull, increasing resonance of the human voice, insulating
the sensitive dental roots and eyes from the rapid temperature changes in the nasal
cavity, and humidifying inhaled air.

The creation model allows for deterioration of a perfect creation.

In short, not one of the items on the list fits the definition for a truly vestigial
organ.

However, there are two principles that need to be stated about the very concept
of vestigial organs, an idea that has been very destructive of scientific progress
(why research something that is deemed useless?):

First, it is in principle not possible to prove that an organ is useless,
because there is always the possibility that a use may be discovered in the future.
This has happened with over a hundred alleged useless vestigial organs which are
now known to be essential.

Second, even if the alleged vestigial organ were no longer needed, it would
prove devolution not evolution. The creation model
allows for deterioration of a perfect creation. However the particles-to-people
evolution model needs to find examples of nascent organs, i.e.
those which are increasing in complexity.

Julie I. wrote: “Thank you so much for this site! I am very blessed already. I appreciate you sharing all these helps and resources. Especially the free ones. We are grateful!” Keep the free stuff coming. Support this site

Comments closed

Readers’ comments

Steven C.,Australia, 17 December 2011

Regarding body hair—one function is definitely to assist with cooling. As a cyclist under peer pressure to shave my legs, I tried it and found that my legs did not feel as cool with the hair removed as they had before. It seems that the hair helps to slow the evaporation, as well as helping to feel the breeze.

Scott M.,United States, 16 February 2012

"Vestigial" does not mean useless, as you imply. A vestigial organ is an organ that has lost all or most of its original function. By merely proving that an organ has some purpose, you do not prove that it is not vestigial. However, the argument that, "Vestigial organs do not exist because we were all created" is nonetheless solid and internally consistent. Still though, you are misinterpreting the basic argument by 'evolutionists.' The argument is not "vestigial organs exist; therefore, we evolved"; the argument is "If we were created, God could have designed the body more efficiently, and these inefficiencies fit nicely into the theory of evolution." A quick example from wikipedia would be moles, who are blind but have eyes that are covered with skin. The argument would go: "God wouldn't have given moles eyes if he was going to make them blind anyways, but in evolution this can be explained because the ancestors of moles had eyes." I'm sure you could answer this argument too; my main concern is that your article, as is, does not address the 'vestigial organ argument.' I suspect that this is why you think it is a bad argument.

Lita Cosner responds

Dear Scott,

The most common definition of a vestigial organ is not “an organ that has lost all or most of its original function” but an organ “which has lost its function in the course of evolution, and is usually much reduced in size.” This definition comes from The Evolution of Life, and not a creationist publication, so you can hardly accuse us of mis-defining the word to help our argument. According to this definition, an organ which has a use in any stage of life is not vestigial.

“Vestigial organs do not exist because we were all created” is not our argument at all. With 6,000 years of degeneration since the Fall, we would expect degenerate organs to exist. Indeed, we have written about blind cave fish in this context (http://creation.com/blind-fish-island-immigrants-and-hairy-babies ). Adaptation can easily involve loss of eyes, or other features. The article being critiqued actually makes this point: “The creation model allows for deterioration of a perfect creation.”

We have also pointed out that loss of features (the vestigial organ argument) does not ‘prove evolution’ as evolution needs a mechanism for creating eyes, not losing them. The natural loss of features is happening all the time and sometimes it is adaptive (useful for survival). This point was also made in the article: “However the particles-to-people evolution model needs to find examples of nascent organs, i.e. those which are increasing in complexity.”

Regarding moles, they are not blind. They have poor eyesight compared to an eagle, but they are not blind. These things are discussed in http://creation.com/the-mole.

Interestingly, the existence of marsupial moles that are almost identical in body form to the placental mole is good evidence for the creation model, as opposed to evolutionary story telling (“evolutionary convergence”), especially when combined with many other examples of such similarities that cannot be due to common ancestry (evolution). This is part of the ‘biotic message’ pattern in living things that speaks of a supervising Creator over all. See: http://creation.com/the-biotic-message-book-review.